"The National Parks system was created a hundred years ago to protect America’s wild places..."

[handmade34]

http://www.intelligentlifemagazine.com/features/the-bad-end-of-beyond

"National Parks are an integral part of the nation of the United States: 3.6%, to be precise, though they represent a higher percentage of the American soul. They cover 52.2m acres, and in 2014 they welcomed 292,800,082 visitors. They owe their existence to reasons that are quintessentially American and yet utterly universal. This is the fabled frontier: the place of the young men who went West to grow up with the country. They fought nature and they fought the indigenous people: that’s part of history, but it’s also part of mythology. That mythology is owned by America..."

a sweet essay, and good read, that speaks to me about my love of our National Parks, Forests and Monuments... it explains why I am so dismayed about the occupation in Harney County, OR. I have had the good fortune to visit many of our National places and love each one of them for their unique qualities... I want us to continue our protection of public lands and I want to see more people be able to visit


[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[deathrind]

1. John Muir,

Was a man with a great vision, we are fortunate he came along when he did. The Ken Burns film:

"The National Parks: America's Best Idea"

Is an excellent series.

[happyslug]

3. But it took President Grant to do it

Technically Lincoln had made Yosemite a Park in the 1860s, but as a State Park of California (that lasted till 1890, when the Federal Government took Yosemite over).

Yellowstone was the first FEDERAL National Park, the State option was considered but given Yellowstone is technically in three States, a Federal Park was deemed needed:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/yellowstoneprotectionact1872.htm

John Muir and Gifford Pinchot and their great debate over National Resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot

Pinchot saw that you can get more support for reservation of national areas if you can show such reservation are a plus for the country as a whole, thus he opposed Muir's desire for wildness on the grounds that economics will sooner or later destroy such isolation, unless you have a group of people to oppose that change, people who have a FINANCIAL interest in preserving such natural reservations. President Lyndon Johnson had a similar attitude, Johnson once made a comment that nothing gets done In Washington, unless someone is lobbying for it. For this reason Johnson was more interested in setting up groups to lobby for social programs (and the National Parks and Forests) then in setting up such social programs (and environmental programs. How thinks get down in DC is by lobbying, and Pinchot and Johnson both acted on that political fact. Muir also learned he had to work inside that system, thus he lobbied Congress himself in regards to the National Parks and Forests.

Muir opposed any cutting of any trees in the National Forests, Pinchot wanted select cutting and opposed clear cutting. These two fought over that dispute all their lives, but also saw each other as good friends and allies against the Timber Industry who wanted to clear cut federal forests.

While Governor of Pennsylvania (he was elected to two non conservative terms, 1923 to 1927 and 1931 to 1935 for Governors of Pennsylvania could NOT succeed themselves at that time period) he purchased land for Allegheny National Forest AND the even larger State Forests in Pennsylvania. Pinchot also outlawed the Coal and Iron Police, and if you ever read about those thugs, it was one of the greatest thing to happen to the Pennsylvania Labor Movement.

Pinchot also set up the Pennsylvania Code, the codification of Regulations issued by the State of Pennsylvania. It is considered the best codification of regulations in the United States to this day. Pennsylvania has the worse "codification" of its laws, the State has been Codifying the Laws since the 1960s and only half way through. Yes, the same state has the best code of regulations in the country but also the worse code of its actual laws. Pinchot could only do so much, given he was a Republican and half of the Republicans in Pennsylvania hated him (they wanted to be able beat up on labor organizers AND cu down any tree they wanted to cut down, concept Pinchot opposed.

[deathrind]

6. I agree,

Wholeheartedly, Muir was a bit of "radical" on the conservation side of it and it is very true that he did not have the tactical politicking needed that the system requires but he was the first to bring to light in his writings that there are certain places in this country that should be left untouched for all the enjoy/appreciate.

[RKP5637]

2. +++ 1,000 +++ K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Igel]

4. Interesting ...

But misleading.

The complaint isn't "National Parks." The complaint is federal lands management, which includes parks, preserves, monuments, and just plain ol' BLM land.

If you pull up a map of federal lands, you see that a line that runs from the eastern border of New Mexico up through Montana's eastern border separates rather neatly the extent of federal lands (excluding mineral rights). Once you get over to the Pac NW, esp. western Washington and down into coastal California you get back to having most of the land be owned or administered locally.

We can claim "the feds bought the land, it's theirs", but that would hold for the Louisiana Purchase in toto, including Louisiana. Most of that land devolved to the local "we the people" to serve local interests instead of being administered from DC. That argument simply doesn't hold.

It's really a question of how much land was turned over to private or state ownership by a given date of accession to the union through land grants and squatting. In the case of parts of Oregon, it was reservation before it re-reverted to federal jurisdiction. To some extent the usual claim that the more politically important (for liberal causes) the territory, the more local control holds, but it's mostly an accident of history and geography.

In some cases there's a fair amount of outrage because some lands were turned over to private/state/local sources but remained surrounded by federal lands. So you get towns and homesteads that are basically boxed in--it's hard even to improve roads or build out infrastructure, much less expand the community, not because of local politics and control but because some agency in DC says "no". And when land-swaps are worked out, groups from Maine to Washington State to California to Florida all weigh in as though they had a strong vested interest what happens 2000 miles away in a place they'll never set foot except possibly to protest. (But they'll condemn eminent domain in their backyards because they insist on local control.)

Texas is a special case. It came into the union through strange means, so there was no federal land. This also accounts for the lack of large Indian reservations.

[handmade34]

5. not meant to mislead

or create controversy... and I understand the difference... just sharing a nice essay about how important OUR land is... I have spent a great deal of time hiking on lands controlled by the BLM

[happyslug]

7. Take some knowledge of the legal theory behind the Federal Land Ownership

And to understand the concept of Federal Land Ownership, you have to some history.

Every Colony had been given its rights to its Land by some King of England. Pennsylvania had been given to William Penn by King James II, just a few years before James II was overthrown, but the grant to Penn was upheld by his successor King William III ad Mary II (Mary was the Daughter of King Charles I, thus sister to King Charles II and King James II, King William was her husband. In the "Glorious Revolution of 1688" William replaced James as the real Ruler of England. through technically the line of Inheritance was via Mary).

King George II gave Georgia to its owner. These Owners of the Colonies all gave up their rights after the American Revolution and while each state legal claim to their land was from the King they had overthrown, they still maintain that grant of land was valid, and most of the claims were Coast to Coast not just to some western Borders.

Now Some States had Defined Western Borders, Pennsylvania and Maryland were two. New York State had a de facto Western Border for the Great Lakes was the Border between Canada and the US. This was the legal theory of land ownership during the American Revolution.

When the Article of Confederation was adopted in 1781 (This was the first true Federal Constitution replaced by the present Constitution in 1787) states with no claims to western lands demand all states give up those claims. Virginia, which had the most extensive claim to western lands agreed and lead the rest of the States to agree to give all of their claims to western lands to the Federal Government. As part of that deal the states had to agree to Western Borders and what was agreed to is the western borders of the 13 original States AND West Virginia (West Virginia was part of Virginia till 1864).

To get this deal through Connecticut reserved part of what is now Northeast Ohio (Called the Western Reserve) but conceded the rest of its claim to the US Government as part of the compromises to get the Articles of Confederation passed (and gave up the rest in the 1790s in exchange for the Federal Government assuming its war debt).

More on Connecticut Western Reserve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Western_Reserve

Thus except for the 13 Original States, West Virginia (which in 1781 was part of Virginia), Vermont (which in 1781 was disputed between New York and Connecticut) and Texas (which join the Union as an independent Republic in 1845), all lands in the US from 1781 onward was the sole property of the Federal Government (and ALL of the states had to agree to this term for unanimous consent of all of the states was one of the requirements under the Articles of Confederation). The Congress of the United States in 1787 (this is the Congress under the Articles of Confederation) then passed the Northwest Ordinance which set up how the land of the then Northwest Territory of the United States (present days States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin) was to be surveyed and sold.

This Ordinance remained the law of the United States till all of the land was surveyed by the late 1800s. The Northwest Ordinance was afterward extended to the rest of the US, except the above mention states. When new states were entered into the Union, the United States still retained all property it had not yet sold. When Louisiana was purchased from France, part of the agreement was to recognize all French and Spanish land grants. This was also part of the agreement with Mexico when Mexico gave up California and the rest of what is now the American South west. Since most of these lands had NOT been sold by the Spanish, French or Mexicans governments, the US received free title to those lands. As to lands actually sold by those government, that was a huge source of legal problems in the late 1800s. Was a land grant actually given? Was it valid? S Land Grant issued by a Government AFTER that same Government sold the land to the US, was invalid, but if sold before the sale to the US, such a land grant was valid (and I will NOT bring in the Russians, for they controlled what later became the Gold Fields of California, in fact Sutter's Mill had been built by the Russians and sold to Sutter, who in the subsequent gold rush lost everything).

Thus the US has always had title to the lands it has NOT sold. The land NEVER reverted back to the states they are in when the States came into the Union, the land remained the property of the US till the US sold it.

In fact if any reversion exists as to unsold land, it would be to those states (Virginia having the widest claims) that gave up their rights to those lands to the Federal Government in 1781. Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia had the best claims and any reversion of the land reverts to one of those states. Now, the State the land is in remains an separate State from Virginia, but the OWNERSHIP of the FEDERAL LAND in that states, if it reverts to anyone from the Federal Government it is to Virginia NOT any of those western states the land is technically in.

Please Note I fully accept these lands are the property of the Federal Government, Virginia and the rest of the States gave up any tights to those lands in 1781, but if the land reverted from the Federal Government to anyone, it is to the State of Virginia.

While the following map only show state claims to the Mississppi river, you can see each State's land Claims:



AS to native American's right to the land. Under the Legal Theory of the 1600s and 1700s, such natives had first right to their lands, but Britain, and later the American Colones and even later the United States Government had the right to buy those rights from the natives and then rely on their own laws of ownership. i.e. The First Americans had rights, but those rights could be extinguished by Treaty. When said rights had been extinguished by Treaty in the form of the Natives "Selling the Land" they were NOT selling it, but giving up their rights to the land. Once the land had been sold, the rights as grants from the Crown became the rule of land ownership. The Grant from the Crown (as transferred to the Original Colonies and then Transferred to the Federal Government in 1781) was the real right of ownership, NOT the sale of the land by the First Americans.

I bring this up for the legal claim to the land under our laws is from the King of England to the Colonies, who in 1781 turned those rights over to the Federal Government. That we also had to buy the land from the Natives was unimportant in the THEORY OF LAND OWNERSHIP.